Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria . . . > Which, to me, means that all footpaths should be bike=yes, as "some" people are allowed to ride on them, unless they are specifically signed as bike=no. Thanks Graeme

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:14:32 +1000 >From: Andrew Harvey >To: Tony Forster >Cc: Sebastian Azagra Flores , OSM Australian Talk > List >Subject: Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >Hi Ton

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Hi Tony and Sebastian, There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Hi Sebastian Thanks for participating in this discussion. You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly permitted without signage". This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Tony I don’t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to verify other edits. OSM data relies on being verifiable. You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary data you provided as part of

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Hi Sebastian and list I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief that a short section of bike route through park should be cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows. Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago From the Mapillary info provided,

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

As the original mapper of the cycleway in changeset 11862794 and having viewed Tony's photos [1] to refresh my memory, I concur with Tony's proposal that the way should be split in two. The western part being a parkland cycleway and therefore satisfying routing. But the eastern part, the

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Hi Sebastian and list, 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943 I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at Changeset: 118627943 I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part appears to be the footpath, there

[talk-au] HighRouleur edits

Hi Sebastian There are 4 issues in play 1) changing to footway when not signed otherwise 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943 3) access=destination 4) Way: 679145843 1) Sebastian, your changing shared ways and cycleways to footways when there are no